The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly Live-Webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CA320:

Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.

CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1: The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution

True, but it does show that many "open-minded" scientists are indeed bias against creationism and intelligent design. What this, "pressure that science imposes" does, that you show no regard to refute, is create an atmosphere of complete denial of any scientific credit through journal publishing of supernatural or design inferences in nature. It effectively propagates a scientific philosophy that implies a discredited and un-scientific nature of creationism and intelligent design that is not, yet paraded as it is based on scientific grounds rather than philosophical presuppositions which are in actuality what is non-scientific and unfalsifiable.

What this, "pressure that science imposes" does is mask evolutionists philosophies under the cloak of science.

-- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

Many creationists have lost their job because of their conclusions. Dr Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists' being abused for their belief in scientific Creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach. Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death threats.


The National Science Foundation, which is a government organization, is known for their views against creationism. They even released a pamphlet denouncing creationism (Science and Creationism: The view from the National Academy of Sciences) and they give thousands of dollars a year to secular scientists, but only give one dollar a year to people like Robert Gentry. Surely this shows that evolutionary dogma is creeping in our collages and schools.

2: Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it.

Creationists move from theory to theory, just like anyone else. They even debunk their own arguments. For example the refutation of Setterfield’s C-decay cosmology or Gentry’s Po interpretation.

Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.)

AiG (and other creationists) have taken a faith position that no valid scientific evidence will contradict creation. Therefore, if any does appear to, it must not be valid. They made this clear by referring to "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence " (emphasis added). This is actually little different to the clear attitude of many evolutionists. At least creationists are prepared to acknowledge their faith position.

This should be read in the light of another statement of theirs that it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs:

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.[1]

So they are really saying that no human interpretation of the evidence is going to change their minds on what God has declared.

At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

A) There are thousands of creation scientists. Showing one example means nothing.

B) Jonathan Wells by no means represents the mainstream creationist movement.


Personal tools